On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 11:14:51 +0000 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 10:41:02 +0200 > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 06:57:46PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This is to avoid tripping up kernel-doc which filters it out before > > > but not after the name. > > > > > > Fixes: > > > ./include/linux/iio/iio.h:628: warning: Function parameter or struct member '__private' not described in 'iio_dev' > > > ./include/linux/iio/iio.h:628: warning: Excess struct member 'priv' description in 'iio_dev' > > > > ... > > > > > - void *priv __private; > > > + void __private *priv; > > > }; > > > > This is still inconsistent from the position perspective (while may still > > work). I specifically placed it there, otherwise what you need is to have > > > > void * __private priv; > > > > to be fully consistent. > > > > That said, either you need to carefully reindent all the affected members, > > or fix the kernel-doc, or both. > Doh. Indeed. The marking was wrong and sparse tripped on it. > > I'll switch to void * __private priv; hideous though that is and not worry about indenting. > > We can then decide next cycle whether to tidy up better. Style wise I decided this was least hideous void *__private priv; > > > >
